Then there's the narrative that I suspect most Americans believe, in which the former president was much more of a tomcat in Arkansas, and probably has tomcatted occasionally in his post-presidency -- but always consensually, and lately in ways that have minimized exposure or embarrassment.
If either of these narratives are true, then Clinton's sex life will be a non-issue in 2016. If an adulterer, even a frequent adulterer, is all he is, then an America that didn't want him impeached in the 1990s isn't going to object to having him as the First Gentlemen today.
But suppose you believe the Broaddrick story. Liberals dismissed it during the impeachment days, but if you read the summary of the case from the (mostly liberal) Dylan Matthews at the (mostly liberal) website Vox, this dismissal looks unfair. There's an inescapable he-said/she-said dynamic, but one need not be a "believe all rape allegations" absolutist to find her claim persuasive.
If she's telling the truth, then Clinton's sexual past becomes something more predatory. The slippage between a powerful man's dalliances and straightforward predation is something that could happen just once. But looked at in the light of a credible rape allegation, there are all sorts of Clinton stories -- the Willey and Jones cases, the rumors collected by Jones's lawyers, the old tales of state troopers being used as procurers, the 2002 globetrotting on the jet of a billionaire who's also a convicted statutory rapist -- that could suggest a darker pattern, tending toward the Cosby-esque.
The truth about Bill Clinton's past, then, is that we don't actually know the truth. And even in our tabloid-driven age, it's quite possible that we simply never will.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
